Comments on: Vista x64 contra Vista x86? Does 64-bit offer better performance than 32-bit?

By: Ashentech.com

Ashentech.com — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 05:22:03 +0000

Little note for the first poster, VPN software mostly “just works” in my experiance, and if it dosnt, try hamichi, it works flawlessly, and supposedly will have a native x64 version fairly soon

By: Troy

Troy — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:12:58 +0000

Posting again, my spider platform has been rock solid with the exception of the motherboard. The asus M3A32-MVP is horrible. So, I waited and upgraded to the M3A79-T (the same family with the new chipset(s)) and everything is AWESOME!!! plays games with (3870’s X-Fired) without a prob (Crysis, CoD4 + more) and gets my work done in a flahs! No crashing, no errors, no nothing. Pure speed and an absolute great user experience.

I think a lot of the complaining about vista wasn’t necessarily attributed to the inability of Vista, maybe it was the users? Who knows, but I love it!

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:03:41 +0000

I can safely say that Vista has improved over time and a lot of the bugs are addressed. I myself use Vista X64 and most of my programs are indeed 32 bit programs. My system came preinstalled with x64 and what is said in this article is true. 64-bit software is a rarity mainly because of the newness of this particular platform. 32 bit has been around a while and most programs are optimized for that. So yes, this article speaks truth.. the only bebefit I see for 32 bit ppl is the added kernel security of the 64-bit system. Other than that, don’t waste your time ppl unless like said before, your a video editor or something and need the power of 64.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:02:04 +0000

Robert, I have never run a benchmark myself with Vista x64. However, the general rule is that there are only a few applications available that perform better on a 64-bit machine. You shouldn’t experience a difference with 32-bit apps. 64-bit video editing software might perform better under Vista x64, but only if it was optimized for 64-bit. As far I as I know, there are no differences between CPU types when it comes to 64-bit. It all depends on the software.

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:35:11 +0000

Have you benchmarked performance of 32 apps, MS Office Professional 2007, Wordperfect X3, Adobe Premiere Elements etc) under vista 64 vs vista 32. If so, what were the results? What about cpu intensive routines, such as, video editing and rendering? Where does the new Intel i7 cpu’s fall into this?

By: expensive laptop - Ceroc Scotland Forum

expensive laptop - Ceroc Scotland Forum — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:02:54 +0000

[...] I started to write more, but then found this article which said everything I wanted to say: 4sysops – Vista x64 contra Vista x86? Does 64-bit offer better performance than 32-bit? Personally I would get as much memory as I could in the laptop. If it only supported 4GB then I [...]

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 20 May 2008 18:17:57 +0000

Troy, sounds like a nice configuration. I am sure you won’t complain again because of bad performance. If you want to use all of your 4GB RAM you certainly need Vista x64.

By: troy

troy — Sat, 17 May 2008 08:12:21 +0000

After running on XP (due to budget constraints) for the last year I have finally gotten a new machine. I initially installed Vista 32-bit on my old machine and it was SOOOOOOOOOOO slooooooooow. It was like pulling teeth.

But now, I have upgraded all the hardware and built an AMD spider platform. I have listed the specs below. After researching the issue, I am going to rock th 64-bit version of vista. My main concern was just the games I run but it looks like they will all play without a problem.

Here are my new system specs:

AMD Phenom X4 9850 BE (2.5Ghz OC’d to 3Ghz)
ATI Radeon HD 3870 512MB DDR4(soon to be XFired)
4GB Corsair Dominator DDR2 1066 (PC8500)
22″ Samsung 2253LW LCD monitor
WD Raptor 10,000 RPM 75 GB Drive (OS Partition – soon to be RAID)
Samsung 500GB HDD
ASUS M3A32-MVP Delux w/ WiFi (790 Chipset)
CoolerMaster Cosmos 1000 case
CoolerMaster PSU 750W
Zalman CPU Fan 9700
Vista Ultimate x64 & Fedora 9

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 07 May 2008 19:23:52 +0000

Hi Chris,

Thanks a lot for the information you provided that is a big help.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 06 May 2008 21:02:48 +0000

@Chris^^

32 bit programs are run natively in Vista x64 rather thab run in emulation as on XP Pro x64. I play games all the time that are 32bit on x64 Ultimate, the only problem is legacy games with old 16 bit installers, they just won’t run.

If you are going to do heavy 3d CAD or DCC (like 3d cg movies etc. you pretty much need x64. There’s so much multitasking like going from Photoshop to 3ds max to aftereffects to some other program and so on and the extra RAM is a migraine saver.

It really depends on your hardware. If you go x64 MAKE sure your kit has signed drivers that WORK so you don’t BSODs!

I hope this helps!

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 03 May 2008 18:57:12 +0000

Hello,

While searching for information on Vista X86 VS X64 I came across this article and found it very interesting. I’m debating on getting Vista 64 bit or sticking with the traditional 32 bit OS.

I’m going to be getting a new computer in which the motherboard has a FSB 1333 throughout everything, including memory. I will be putting in a 2.66 Quad Core processor FSB1333, a GeForce 9800 GX2 1GB video card, and 4GB of platinum memory FSB 1333.

As you can probably guess I will be using it for games. Of course there is a lot of other stuff that I’m planning on doing with it besides games, some of it being graphical related. I know I should get a Mac for the graphics, but they are so expensive and that’s why I’m holding back on getting one.

Anyway after reading this article I found it interesting that putting in a 32 bit OS with 4GB of RAM would be a waste being that it will only recognize up to 3.12GB. I am interested in installing the X64 OS but from my understanding it will not support 32 bit applications at all. I thought maybe that it will just slow the OS down to allow for the 32 bit application to run, but from my understanding it will not allow it to run at all.

Being that a lot of applications still aren’t running in 64 bit yet I feel that I should just get the X86 OS. This was my conclusion after doing the research and I just wanted your opinion on which OS you think would be the best for me to get.

Thanks

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:34:25 +0000

Jacob, you’re certainly right, it is a typical hen and egg problem. I just wished Microsoft made a similar move as Apple with Mac OS X. I guess the majority will move to 64-bit only if there is no other choice.

By: Jacob Hornbech

Jacob Hornbech — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:39:54 +0000

True.

I tried out the 64-bit version of Vista, but at the time being it didn’t have the support of A/V codecs and apps that I needed… I’m currently running the 32-bit version at it runs smoothly, when you learn to use it the proper way

I’m strongly considering installing the 64-bit version again when software developers adapt the 64-bit code, and hence fit my needs.

I’m pro changing to 64-bit but the rest of the world needs to see that as well

Next we need is more multi threaded software, it’ll come as well, with 8-core CPU’s in the horizon…

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:39:54 +0000

Ochiru, good list of pros and cons. Thanks! Why do you think one has additional software costs with Vista x64?

Javellan, I didn’t want to say that you need Vista x64 to run 64-bit guests. I just meant that virtualization software needs a lot of memory.

Jacob, you’re right that the main reason why Vista x64 improves performance is because there will be less disk activity if you have more RAM. However, this applies not only to the pagefile.

Ross, Vista x64 is certainly more reliable. Although, so far I only had one Vista x86 crash and the reason was Google Desktop.

By: Ross Snowden

Ross Snowden — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:29:03 +0000

That might be the reason I’ve never had one single BSOD or other major system-wide crash since installing Vista x64 a year ago. I guess it was a good decision. At the moment, I’m using 4GB, and Vista “sees” it all.

By: Jacob Hornbech

Jacob Hornbech — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:34:23 +0000

Well an advantage could also be that if you put 8GB in your desktop computer, you could run with no pagefile, and hence lessen the disk activity

By: javellan

javellan — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 03:10:54 +0000

I don’t believe you need a host with an 64bit OS to have a guest running an 64bit OS. I do this in VMware Workstation daily, you have to have a 64bit enabled processor though.

By: ochiru

ochiru — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:21:11 +0000

Good post. I find x64 Vista more stable because of forced driver signing. In my experience almost every BSOD or hang can be traced back to a faulty device driver. This is pretty commonplace even on servers. On the other hand this means that you, for example, have to use VMware Workstation instead of the free Server 1.0x.

Reasons to NOT use x64:
-Need for unsigned drivers
-Legacy games and apps (16bit installers)
-VPN connections (x64 clients are very rare)
-Larger installation and patches/service packs
-Additional software costs

Reasons to USE x64:
-Workstation class hardware
-Development platform
-VMware Host (able to host x64 guests)
-Stability
-Additional security (32bit software are isolated)